In recent days, I’ve reported on a florist who was sued for not providing flowers for a same-sex wedding, a baker who was sued for not providing a cake for a same-sex wedding, and a wedding photographer who lost a case in New Mexico’s Supreme Court because she would not photograph a same-sex wedding. Many who support same-sex marriage applaud this phenomena, reasoning that people should not be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples. But what about personal liberty? What about the liberty to follow one’s conscience in these matters? Why is it ok to require people to violate their conscience, or lose their livelihood?
Can you imagine the outcry if a homosexual printer was forced by the government to either print anti-homosexual propaganda, or get out of the printing industry? What if a homosexual filmmaker was sued for refusing to direct a film arguing that homosexuality was immoral or harmful, and forced to either direct the film or find a new line of work? What if a screenplay writer who was also an anti-gun activist was forced to write a script for a movie promoting the use of firearms? Would this be acceptable? No! No one should be forced by the government to lend their services to projects or events they believe to be immoral, and which run contrary to their conscience. Yet this is exactly what the government is requiring of its citizens when it comes to same-sex marriage, and many same-sex marriage advocates are applauding this. If you support people being forced by law to violate their conscience, don’t be surprised if one day the government forces you to violate your conscience as well. It’s ironic that those who argue for more liberty in the case of same-sex marriage are willing to take liberties away from those who disagree.
Thinking to Believe 
November 8, 2013 at 10:00 pm
I also read that sis Quijas posted a change therapy law that will go into effect jan 2013. if voted through will not allow our school AGE children to seek counseling from godly counselors or even those who are opposed to same sex attractions they could not persuade, dissuade or therefore imply that those kids need to rethink their preferences. It would be against the law for counselors to suggest anything conversely to that preference.
It has gone to the appeals court. I am appalled at th many rights we used to think e had being violated
LikeLike
November 9, 2013 at 9:46 am
This has to be among the weakest arguments used to further try and ostracize the LGBT Community. These points about being forced to go against one’s conscience simply shows that the loudest message from this type of argument shows that those yelling about the sensitivities of conscience proves those who agree with this article and support its premise are among that group with the smallest consciences in the world.
This quote by Cheryl could have been taken directly out of the Civil Rights Movement Book…………”I am appalled at the many rights we used to think we had being violated.”……….
What’s the difference between a Bigot and a Racist? About 60 years that still has not gone away. How many consciences were violated by Rosa Parks because she did not give up her front seat to Mr. Whitey? How many consciences were violated when School Integration forced Mr. Whitey’s kids to go to the same school with Mr. Coloured’s kids, forced them to drink from the same water fountain, use the same the washrooms, attend the same classes; OMG, sit next to the same students in the mixed class.
And how many consciences were soothed when Mr. Coloured’s Leader was shot dead by Mr. Rifle’s bullet? It is no small wonder why the first six letters in the word assassination contains a double assass!
I have no sympathy for a Bigot’s conscience but I do pity Mr. Bigot’s children who will be forced to grow up in a homophobic environment of Absolute Certainty.
Well if that’s the case you may as well take drugs because you’re already on the most dangerous drug there is. Absolute certainty is a drug that can make people do the strangest things. It’s the devil’s drug when suddenly, no action is too callous or too spiteful or too cruel to be justified.
And if you get hooked on it and if you keep taking it, you too could wake up one day, so full of righteousness that suddenly the only thing that makes sense to you anymore is somebody else’s death. And you’ll realize that your conscience is no longer your best friend.
So if someone offers you, Absolute Certainty, they’re going to make it sound attractive and you will be tempted; but, just say no. Your conscience and your children’s consciences will thank you for it and that really is, an absolute certainty.
LikeLike
November 9, 2013 at 9:54 am
Sometimes there are no words that do justice to a moment in history. Only a picture will work.
http://www.birdsonawireblog.com/1/post/2012/04/the-front-of-the-bus-then-and-now.html
LikeLike
November 9, 2013 at 1:42 pm
People of religion do not have a monopoly on righteousness; they think they do but they don’t!
When the biology of a person gets messed up that results in the gestational gender anomaly why consider them immoral, wrong, terrible or a blemish on the face of the earth? Their gender identity is between their skull not between their legs as the marvels of medicinal intervention proves a greater miracle than any belief system can ever hope for despite the multitude of prayer wailings.
Proof enough that normal human beings are being brought home, welcomed back into the world community and not ostracized by a world operating on myth, is poignantly illustrated in the Christ Clear Commentary of the following short, wonderful video:
LikeLike
November 12, 2013 at 11:02 am
Do you really have a conscience that would deny the Brain vs Physical gender anomaly that affects thousands of kids around the world? That people without conscience or understanding and amoral want to injure, harm and kill?
LikeLike
December 2, 2013 at 7:48 pm
None of the scenarios in which you presented as counter arguments to this situation are in any way a good comparison and in fact are way off base. This is a more accurate scenario: What if a homosexual refused to photograph or provide floral arrangements for a heterosexual couple? The answer is the same as the situation of concern for this piece: This is a direct example of discrimination.
Harping on your disdain for homosexual rights does nothing to advance your faith and, according to other recent posts, makes you appear judgmental, uneducated and a poor leader in your religious community. I’m not trying to be confrontational but I was led to this website in my query regarding Jesus praying in public and was led to a specific post on your blog (which was also based in bias and misinformation). This blog was on the front page so I wanted to see what other things you had to say regarding your religious agenda and it led me to this post as well as a couple other recent posts about homosexuality and gender identity. Both of these topics are an unfortunate basis for spiritual opinions/blogging and should really be left to a purely objective analysis. Your blog approaches these situations from neither a spiritual nor an objective perspective and make me wonder what kind of spiritual leadership position or theological credentials you actually hold.
LikeLike
December 5, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Joel,
There is a difference between just and unjust discrimination. What if a photographer was asked to photograph an unofficial wedding involving a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl? Would it be discrimination to refuse the request? No, because the refusal is not arbitrary, but based on a moral disapproval of pedophilia. Likewise, those who object to participating in same-sex weddings do so on moral grounds. What moral grounds would the homosexual photographer have for refusing to photograph a heterosexual wedding? Who is arguing that heterosex is immoral?
Jason
LikeLike
January 1, 2014 at 1:40 pm
What is wrong with the world that keeps it still, in thrall, to a system of caste, of coloured inflections, of black, of white?…. you know, when my soulmate caresses my arm, my back, my pain, I do not feel a black touch, a white touch, a coloured touch; what I feel and what I love about my soul mate, is the human touch and that human touch of love has no companion with the division that has engulfed the world for far too long!
LikeLike
March 20, 2014 at 9:23 am
A slur against heterosexual couples and those who find the opposite sex attractive as a mate should be treated in exactly the same way a slur against homosexuals is. A crime committed against a homosexual is loudly cried out against as a hate crime, such a crime against one who is heterosexual should also be decried in the same fashion. Those who disagree should be honest enough to admit to being bigoted.
LikeLike